Understanding the Change–Cynicism Cycle: The Role of HR

• Date: 01 January 2017
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21708
• Author: Michelle Brown,Christina Cregan,Carol T. Kulik,Isabel Metz

Human Resource Management, January–February 2017, Vol. 56, No. 1. Pp. 5–24

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21708

Correspondence to: Michelle Brown, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne,

198Berkeley Street, Carlton 3010, Victoria, Australia, Phone: +61 3 83447872, Fax: +61 3 93494293,

E-mail: brownm@unimelb.edu.au

UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGE–

CYNICISM CYCLE: THE ROLE OF HR

MICHELLE BROWN, CAROL T. KULIK,

CHRISTINACREGAN, AND ISABEL METZ

Employee change cynicism is an unintended consequence of organizational

change, which can undermine the effectiveness of change initiati ves. Based on

social information processing theory, we examine the impact of two human

resource roles (administrative expert and strategic change agent) on the relation-

ship between the quantity of organizational change and employee change cyni-

cism. Using multilevel data from 1,831 employees in 70 organizations, we fi nd

employees who are exposed to more organizational change report higher levels

of change cynicism. However, the strength of the organizational change–cynicism

relationship is affected by the role of HR in the employees’ organizations. When HR

undertakes an administrative expert role, change is more likely to generate change

cynicism. When HR undertakes a strategic change agent role, change is less likely

to generate change cynicism. Our results suggest that organizations need to think

carefully about the role of HR during organizational change and encourage HR to

adopt a strategic change agent role. ©2015Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: employee change cynicism, HR managers, strategic change agent

role, administrative role, social information processing theory

Change is an inevitable fact of organiza-

tional life as organizations undertake

change programs to improve their com-

petitive position or to prevent collapse.

Researchers, however, report that between

half (Quinn, 2004) and two thirds (Beer & Nohria,

2000) of change projects fail. One explanation for

the failure of change programs is employee change

cynicism, “a pessimistic viewpoint about change

efforts being successful because those respon-

sible for making change are blamed for being

unmotivated, incompetent, or both” (Wanous,

Reichers, & Austin, 2000, p. 133). Employee

change cynicism represents a relatively malleable

form of cynicism (i.e., an attitude rather than a

trait). Therefore, the organization’s approach to

change has the potential to influence the level of

employee cynicism (Andersson & Bateman, 1997;

Davis & Gardner, 2004; Wanous etal., 2000).

Understanding negative employee reactions

to change is important: change efforts often fail

because organizations and their leaders under-

estimate the importance of employee reactions

to the change process (Choi, 2011; Greenhalgh,

Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Self,

Armenakis, & Schraeder, 2007). Negative employee

attitudes toward organizational change are often

attributed to employee obstinacy or irrational

resistance to change (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin,

2005), but Dean, Brandes, and Dharwadkar (1998)

suggest that past experiences with change may be

a potent source of employee change cynicism.

Using a two-wave multisource design, we study

the impact of human resources (HR) on employee

change cynicism. We anticipate that employees

who experience the greatest quantity of change are

most likely to report change cynicism. However,

the strength of the quantity of change–employee

6 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

the impact of a traditional HR role ( administrative

expert) with the more recent strategic change

agent role.

When HR adopts an administrative expert

role, it ensures that HR processes such as staffing,

training, and data management are carried out

efficiently and effectively (Lemmergaard, 2009;

Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). Underpinning the

administrative expert role is a view that employ-

ees constitute a cost and a competitive advantage

can be achieved by reducing these costs and hence

increasing efficiency (Ulrich, 1997). As an admin-

istrative expert, HR implements the decisions of

senior management in the organization but is

not in a position to share much information with

employees. HR joins the change process at a later

stage to deal with operational issues (Alfes, Truss,

& Gill, 2010). HR is only able to help employees

access entitlements that are part of the change

program (e.g., retraining, relocation, and redun-

dancy provisions).

As a strategic change agent, the HR unit devel-

ops, coordinates, and facilitates organizational

change activities and informs employees about

changes in order to reduce disruptions to the orga-

nization. The strategic change agent ensures that

the organization has the capacity to handle change

by assisting employees to embrace and implement

change (Lemmergaard, 2009; Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich

& Brockbank, 2005). As a strategic change agent,

HR has the capacity to generate “positive change

process experiences” (Stensaker & Meyer, 2012,

p.115) by helping employees break from the past

and adapt to and internalize new ways of doing

things in the organization.

We contribute to the literature in three ways.

First, we draw on the HR role and employee cyni-

cism literatures to predict and test the impact

of an organizational level factor (the role of the

HR unit) on the transmission of change into

employee cynicism. Employee cynicism research

is typically conducted at the employee level but

employee characteristics do not fully explain the

outcomes of change (S. Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor,

2004; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013).

Multilevel models that include both employee

and organizational factors “better reflect the reali-

ties in organizations” (S. D. Caldwell & Liu, 2011,

p. 75). Second, researchers have recommended

that organizations develop practices to man-

age employee cynicism (see, for example, Brown

& Cregan, 2008; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin,

1997; Wanous etal., 2000), but a more effective

approach is to prevent employee cynicism from

developing in the first place. It can be difficult

to dislodge employee cynicism once it has taken

root in an organization (Dean etal., 1998). Third,

change cynicism relationship will be moderated

by the role of HR. Management behavior during

organizational change is a powerful determinant

of employee reactions to organizational actions

though “very little is known about the role that

HR plays in influencing employee reactions to

change” (E.Conway & Monks, 2008, p. 72).

We focus on HR as a source of information

for employees. Management communication is

one of the most commonly used strategies dur-

ing change (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, &

Callan, 2004; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011).

HR is in a position to provide information on a

topic that is of direct relevance to employees: the

impact of the change on their work lives (Sagie,

Elizure, & Koslowsky, 1995). The more important

information is to an employee, the more likely the

information will have an effect (Blau & Katerberg,

1982). Information can help employees deal with

change because uncertainty is detrimental to

employee well-being (Elrod & Tippett, 2002). The

information can ultimately influence employ-

ees’ reactions to change, including their level of

change cynicism.

The information provided by HR to employ-

ees is a function of the role undertaken by the HR

unit in the organization. Several HR role typolo-

gies have been suggested. Ulrich (1997) identi-

fied four HR roles (administrative expert, business

partner, change agent, and employee champion),

which have been expanded to six roles (Ulrich &

Brockbank, 2005). The expansion of Ulrich’s (1997)

HR roles from four to six prompted Lemmergaard

(2009) to suggest that there is “no single defini-

tive model” (p. 188) of HR roles. Storey (1992)

proposed a fourfold typology of advisors, hand-

maidens, regulators, and change makers, while

R. Caldwell (2001) proposed champions, adapt-

ers, consultants, and synergists. The proliferation

of HR roles has created some contradictions and

overlaps between role definitions (Boldizzoni &

Quaratino, 2011).

A common theme across these typologies

is the distinction between a strategic focus and

a day-to-day operational focus. Lemmergaard

(2009) suggests this distinction is meaningful to

HR professionals: it identifies the time frame in

which HR functions (operational–short term and

strategic–long term) and reflects the developmen-

tal progression of the profession. This progression

is particularly relevant in Australia, where the

role of a strategic change agent is a relatively new

(mid-1980s) development (Brown, Metz, Cregan,

& Kulik, 2009). Prior to the 1980s, personnel man-

agers focused on the creation and administration

of systems, including pay systems and training

and development programs. Our article compares